On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 08:50:14AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 08:46, Ladislav Michl <ladis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:06:34PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 7:05 PM Vincent Guittot > > > <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 18:26, Ladislav Michl <ladis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 05:32:31PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 17:07, Ladislav Michl <ladis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 03:12:25PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > > > > > > Please keep all thread list when replying :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ahh, sorry for that... > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 14:33, Ladislav Michl <ladis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I agree, but it doea all the magic correctly, so you won't need > > > > > > > > > to touch that code is ktime_t changes (I know, unlikely..) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the current implementation doesn't care of any changes in ktime_t > > > > > > > > as it uses raw ns > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fair enough, so let's go back to: > > > > > > > > > > > > This one looks good for me > > > > > > > > > > Lets split is for 'comments fix' patch, which was just send and 'the rest'. > > > > > Now, 'the rest' can either be v2 of your "PM/runtime: Fix autosuspend_delay on > > > > > 32bits arch" or will wait for 5.1. You decide :) > > > > > > > > I don't really mind. > > > > > > > > Rafael, > > > > Do you prefer to only take the fix for u64 casting problem or do you > > > > prefer to also take the optimization below in one single patch ? > > > > > > The casting problem is a bug and the optimization is next release > > > material in my view. Please send the optimization separately. > > > > Ok, will send that separately in a few moments... > > Btw, u64 casting problem seems to be still present in rpm_suspend while > > computing slack for autosuspend delay greater than 25% of 2^31 (2^33) ns. > > Good point. I will add it to the fix as well Another nit then, for (u64)(autosuspend_delay) is (u64)autosuspend_delay enough :) I'll wait for your v2 before sending optimization patch. > > Not sure if that triggers any real bug.
